Forums Latest Members
  1. Spacefruit Prolific Speedmaster Hoarder Feb 15, 2015

    Posts
    5,190
    Likes
    22,930
    Came accross these photos on my HD - I am away from home.

    P7150041.ORF.jpg
    P7150022-001.jpg

    Now some may recognise this as my favorite "Over-Patinated" watch, but inside it has a secret:

    P7150002-004.jpg

    So what say the members?

    How did that extra reference get in there?

    While it looks different to the marking of the "105.012-64" it does look genuine.

    Does anyone else have any examples of double reference markings?
     
    onthedial likes this.
  2. alfanator Feb 15, 2015

    Posts
    707
    Likes
    3,717
    Does it have the updated pushers?

    Factory edits of case references happens in the vintage Rolex quite a bit.
     
  3. pitpro Likes the game. Feb 15, 2015

    Posts
    3,073
    Likes
    3,552
    You didn't tell us the movement number.
    That would be important to any theory.
    Well, it's got the 66-67 dial and
    looks to have the taller pushers,
    so I would say this was a caseback
    left over in "the bin" and re-stamped to
    co-ordinate with a 67-68 production
    of this watch.
     
    watchyouwant likes this.
  4. Davidt Feb 15, 2015

    Posts
    10,309
    Likes
    17,879
    It's interesting that the first marking indicates an 105.012-64 and not a -65 or -66, which are obviously closer chronologically. Nothing else would make you think it is anything other than a standard 145.012-67.

    Is this a case of the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and it's purely a case of leftover parts being restamped with the new ref?

    I remember seeing a pic somewhere of a straight lug that carried both 105.003 and 145.003 stamps. Come to think of it, it may well have been on Speedmaster101!
     
  5. Nactex Feb 15, 2015

    Posts
    338
    Likes
    263
    Could have been a case back replaced during a service? Note the bottom right of each picture, marked Speedmaster101.com.
     
  6. Spacefruit Prolific Speedmaster Hoarder Feb 15, 2015

    Posts
    5,190
    Likes
    22,930
    Yes I am sorry I was not clear.

    This watch originally arrived to me as what I assumed is a 145.012. But with a -69 case back. Completely wrong so I removed it.

    The back arrived to me on a straight lug - all other indications were a 105.003.

    So I put the double ref back on what I believe is a 145.012.

    I didn't mean to be deceptive.

    The story for me is all about the double reference back - how it came about, and where it should be.

    I have seen others but wondered if anyone here has one.
     
  7. pitpro Likes the game. Feb 15, 2015

    Posts
    3,073
    Likes
    3,552
  8. djofi Let it go! Jul 14, 2016

    Posts
    57
    Likes
    113
    Yeah, I got one like yours to, however a 105.012-65. I got an extract from the archives from Omega and in their archives it is a 105.012, however produced in february of 1967, the lauch year of the 145.012. I asked the Museum about it, but they did not reply. However asking several Omega experts, I got an answer. The watch was made with a 105.012 case, which is identical to the 145.012, and therefore restamped as the 105.012 was going out of production. Dial pushers and crown are 145.012, where as case is, well, both 105.012 and 145.012. The most likely reasons why Omega production line registered it as a 105.012 is either that they were not yet familiar with the new reference or the fact that the 145.012 was first launched later in 1967.
     
    image.jpeg image.jpeg
  9. OddSpeedy Apr 18, 2017

    Posts
    68
    Likes
    113
    I'd like to add my Speedmaster as reference for this thread. I posted about it in the vintage forum a few weeks back (yes, total noob move not fully exploring the search section first), unfortunately no real insights about the double reference were gained.

    serial # 24532xxx
    105.012-66 HF case also stamped 145.012 SP
    It was passed down to me from a family member, I assume he was the original purchaser (pictures of him wearing it in the 70's... always with a brown leather band).
    The crystal was damaged in the mid 80's and the watch was consigned to life in a sock drawer, until last month when I found it.

    I ordered an extract, I'll update this when I get the results.

    Hopefully these double reference casebacks won't remain a mystery forever. 20170326_145402PROCESSED.jpg 20170402_230251PROCESSED.jpg 20170402_234507PROCESSED02.jpg
     
    Pearcey74, The_Walrus, pitpro and 7 others like this.